1.7. Community NGO Partnership Approach

And some are poor, 33% around so, this showing that Pucca House or concrete house broken, but whereas, Bhugas remain there without any impact of earthquake, here you can see the damage level of the houses those partially how they was affected in different category and educational facilities were done, health facilities were done, panchayat.

This chunk discusses the impact of an earthquake on different types of houses, particularly differentiating between concrete houses (Pucca Houses) and traditional mud houses (Bhugas). It highlights that concrete houses suffered damage while Bhugas remained largely unaffected. Additionally, it notes the rebuilding efforts regarding educational, health, and local government facilities.

Imagine a community where some houses are built of strong materials like concrete, while others are made from mud. When a storm or earthquake hits, the strong houses may suffer damage, whereas the mud houses can withstand natural disasters better because they are more flexible. Similarly, the community worked together to rebuild schools and health clinics after the disaster.

So, people receive money from the government and they reconstructed their own house, they also added money into it. Here is the Thakar house built after earthquake, there were 153 meter connections in the village, presently three tankers of providing water supply, they reconstructed government reconstructed the school, panchayat office was reconstructed also, religious buildings were reconstructed.

In this chunk, it's explained that the government provided financial assistance to the people affected by the earthquake. Families used this aid not only to repair their homes but also invested additional personal finances into the rebuilding process. It also mentions that several essential community facilities were rebuilt, showcasing a collective effort to restore community services post-disaster.

Think of a community that receives funds to fix their houses after being affected by a flood. They might use the funds to repair the damage but could also spend their own savings to improve their homes, making them stronger and more attractive than before.

People build their own house but there was no training program, people actually borrowed money from the government rest of the money; not borrowed but they got the assistance from the government and the rest of the money they provided, and source of money 28% is the own money, they receive the loan from formal institution also, the community Mahajan's or own local Kings, relatives they provide money.

This section describes how community members financed their home construction. While they received loans and assistance from government bodies, a significant portion of the funds (28%) came from their own savings, family, friends, or informal local moneylenders. This indicates a composite approach to funding their reconstruction efforts.

Consider a student planning to buy a new laptop. They might save some money from their allowance, ask their family for a loan, and even take a little from their part-time job earnings. Each of these sources helps them get the laptop they want, much like how the community pooled various resources to rebuild homes.

Here is the contribution of the labour for their own, most of the people they did not provide their own labour but they hired labour, you can see these all are hired labour and some few people especially the Harijans and some low caste groups, they contributed labour for their own constructions.

This chunk outlines how labor was recruited for the reconstruction efforts. Most individuals opted to hire professional laborers instead of doing the work themselves. However, some members from specific social groups, particularly those from lower castes, chose to contribute their own labor to rebuild their homes, indicating a mix of dependency on hired help versus self-help among the community.

Imagine a neighborhood organizing a community garden. Most people might hire landscapers, while a few neighbors who are avid gardeners decide to work on the garden themselves. This shows both reliance on professionals and personal investment in the community project.

The cost, it varies from owner to owner, in some cases it is; the lowest one is 50,000 to 1 lakh and but it is a highly cost like 1.5 and more in many of the cases. People were very satisfied as per the shelter and electricity, but they were not happy with the public infrastructure.

Here, the text discusses the variability in reconstruction costs for houses, ranging from low to high. While individuals expressed satisfaction with the quality of their new homes and amenities like electricity, dissatisfaction was noted regarding the public infrastructure, suggesting that while personal restoration was successful, community services still needed improvement.

Imagine someone who has just renovated their home and is very happy with the result, enjoying modern kitchen appliances and bright rooms. However, they notice that the roads in their neighborhood are full of potholes. While they feel good about their home, they are aware that their overall living environment has not improved as much.

And some received the money from the government, but did not use it, did use it for other purposes so, they have less monitoring, and upper-class people are very less but they receive more assistance from the government. Whereas, lower caste people they are the majority in numerically but they receive low assistance according to some survey, and according to Abhiyan, only 60% of houses are earthquake resistance in this village.

This section explains discrepancies in government assistance regarding house reconstruction, noting that some individuals did not utilize the funds effectively. It highlights the advantage that upper-class individuals had in receiving assistance, despite their lower numerical presence, while lower-caste individuals received less despite their majority status. The findings led to the alarming statistic that only 60% of homes in the community were earthquake-resistant, indicating vulnerability.

Picture a scholarship program where only a few students from a well-off background benefit while many underprivileged students miss out on aid they desperately need. Consequently, only a fraction of the students have access to quality school supplies, leaving the majority at a disadvantage.

So, we can say that it is the community NGO partnership approach that worked much better than others.

In conclusion, the text asserts that the collaborative efforts between the community and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) were more effective compared to other approaches. This partnership allowed for better recovery and rebuilding, demonstrating the importance of community involvement in success.

Consider a sports team working together under a good coach. The team performs better when players cooperate and take guidance. Similarly, the partnership between the community and NGOs worked effectively to achieve successful rebuilding outcomes after the earthquake.

--